[governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

[Milton L Mueller]

Jeremy
Thanks for your role in attempting to get some constructive activity going. I like your idea regarding IGF, more on that later.
I have read the Brazilian resolution at the link you provided (was not allowed to enter the WTPF meetings). While I recognize that it is a well-intentioned attempt to bridge some of the divides, I cannot support it. In fact, I can only view it as a step backwards because of its reversion to the language that makes representatives of national governments preeminent policy makers and the rest of us nothing more than consultants to them at their pleasure. I am referring, of course, to the language about "each in their respective roles and responsibilities." Until national government representatives accept shared responsibility for policy making in the IG context, we do not have MS, we do not have anything new.

Emerging from WTPF, there seems to have been a systematic effort to redefine "multistakeholderism" in conservative, state-centric terms. Moreover, ITU succeeded in co-opting IGF, by successfully developing these draft opinions. That is why I am interested in Jeremy's effort to push the IGF more toward a defined output. I will read his proposal more carefully however, before commenting further. At this stage I just want to warn anyone who might have a knee-jerk reaction against such an experiment in IGF to keep an open mind, because the competition from the ITU in this regard make may rigid opposition to this option self-defeating.

--MM

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:47 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp
Subject: [governance] Request for comment on proposal for IGF multistakeholder opinions

Hello all,

This is to an extend an invitation to participants from the IGC and IRP to join Best Bits participants in working on a draft proposal that we intend to put to next week's IGF open consultation meeting.  The initiative for this proposal comes out of what happened at the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) this week, when Brazil's proposal for a seventh opinion of the meeting, titled "Operationalizing the role of Government in the multi-stakeholder framework for Internet Governance", failed mainly due to lack of time.  I won't say anything more about its substantive content here (though that is a worthy subject for a separate thread), but you can download the draft opinion at http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0005/en or read it online at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTewmlgXNTRYuPvIWylV2K39owgXH8st642I7IaXjh0/edit.

Almost all stakeholders at WTPF agreed that the opinion should be considered further, but there is a question as to where this should happen.  Two options are that the opinion would be finalised by the ITU's Council Working Group on Internet policy (CWG-Internet), which is government-only and meets behind closed doors, or that it would go to the IGF.  In terms of our ability to have input into the text of the opinion, the latter is obviously the better option.  But various developing countries objected to this, correctly, on the basis that the IGF does not have the ability to conclude formal outputs.

The draft proposal addresses this tension, by proposing a new output-oriented main session that would enable the IGF to facilitate the finalisation of the draft opinion, but without requiring changes to the IGF that would enable it to negotiate formal recommendations.  I won't repeat everything in the proposal, but in short, the main session would aim to produce a "multistakeholder opinion" that would be non-binding, would be an output at the IGF rather than of the IGF, and would be endorsed individually rather than being attributed to the IGF as a whole.

If (after reading it!) you would like to discuss the ideas in the proposal in general, you can do so on this list and/or on the Best Bits list, but if you would like to suggest concrete textual changes to the proposal, you can do so on this pad, which currently contains a first draft:

http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/igf-opinions

The deadline for finalising the proposal is short because the IGF open consultation commences on Tuesday.  Therefore we are accepting input on the text of the proposal only until 9am Monday, and shortly thereafter it will be opened for endorsements via the Best Bits website.  The proposal will be presented at the open consultation meeting on behalf of however many organisations or individuals have endorsed it at that time.

Note that this proposal is intended to be a fairly modest yet important step forward towards tangible outputs, but the "multistakeholder opinion" process isn't in itself put forward as the fulfilment of the enhanced cooperation mandate.  Rather, it is a step along that path, acknowledging that, for now, the IGF and enhanced cooperation processes remain on a dual track (the Tunis Agenda suggests this anyway, but it was formalised as a condition of the IGF's renewal to satisfy developing country concerns that the IGF had not adequately addressed their concerns).

--

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130519/d3e0f47b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t